CoatingsPro Magazine

NOV 2015

CoatingsPro offers an in-depth look at coatings based on case studies, successful business operation, new products, industry news, and the safe and profitable use of coatings and equipment.

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 22 of 83

COATINGSPRO NOVEMBER 2015 23 manufacturer's products have changed over previous years' products. W hen performing projects, one of the key hazards that should be identifed and protected against is fre events. Tis includes high momentum gas or two-phase jet fres and/or pool fres produced from evaporating vapors igniting from a liquid spill accumulat- ing on the ground. Fire hazards should be revisited at every stage of the project lifecycle — from concept to front end engineering and design (FEED) to detail design. A fre is an extreme event and should be designed for accordingly in terms of both escape and evacua- tion of personnel and the asset itself. Rather than adopting a "we've always done it this way" approach, a fre risk analysis should really be performed for the project, whether internally by the engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) frm or through a third-party consulting frm that specializes in these kinds of studies. In some instances, this work can be supplemented with a structural response evaluation with a subsequent PFP optimization study. Far too often, the deliverables from these studies come at the end of the safety and structural disci- plines contribution. Actually, the frm performing the fre and PFP study should liaise with the asset stake- holders, such as EPC, the owner, or the operator fre protection SME. Tis backward discussion shows a break- down in the philosophy of how safety is managed. Many companies have detailed safety guidance documents but adhere only to the minimum standards from the likes of American Petroleum Institute (API) and Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Ensuring that the safety, structural, and specialist consultancy groups communicate with the SME on fre protection eliminates the defnition of PFP based on simple assumptions and minimum standards/ guidance practices. Tis allows the fre protection SME to make proper recommendations for what kind and how much PFP to secure for the project. Tis also allows for quick turnarounds and for any questions to be received and answered by those intimately involved with the fre and PFP study. Once the fre protection SME has decided what type of PFP will be used on the asset, the requirements can be supplied to a PFP manufacture and application company for procure- ment. Te chain of communication remains intact with the responsibility of all requirements now justifably tracked between disciplines. W hen this approach is not followed, decisions on design can greatly afect the design intent. An example is assuming onshore facilities only experience pool fres, when in reality, jet fres are just as likely and actually can produce larger impact zones. Choosing a PFP just for jet fres there would be a mistake. Another example is for ofshore facil- ities where the notion is to use PFP on every structural member because "we've always done it this way." Tis may result in an expensive mitigation option, weight issues, and mainte- nance problems during the lifecycle of the platform. The Link Te "we've always done it this way" mentality is a defciency that we as an industry must acknowledge and embrace the necessary changes to ensure it is challenged. And the embrace must come from all involved — not just from a few people. Te consulting frm performing the fre and PFP study should be involved to the completion of the PFP scheme. Te fre protection SME should pull informa- tion from the consulting frm and PFP manufacturers to make an informed decision on which type of PFP is appli- cable to his/her project. Without this efort, judgment calls are made that lack critical informa- tion on project expectations as well as traceability to link the responsibility of PFP to any one group or discipline. W hen an issue arises, involved parties deny any responsibility for the overall plan. Te cooperation between diferent disciplines should be a cohesive bond engrained in the operating culture of not only owner operators but EPC and consulting frms alike. Te link between groups ensures the appropriate level of safety has been incorporated into the design. Tis is a non-trivial task and will take great efort on the part of many diferent groups and companies to accomplish. Resistance will come from many set in their traditional ways following outdating procedures and unwilling to scale what might appear to be a steep learning curve. But you should forge ahead to try to make the change to the proper way of choosing a PFP material because the result will far outweigh the eforts. CP Morgan Reed, eng ineer in process safet y for MMI Eng ineer ing , has of fshore and onshore e x per ience in t he upst ream, mid st ream, and dow nst ream sectors of t he oi l , gas, and pet rochem- ica l indust r ies. Dr. Reed appl ies t her mody namics, f lu id dy namics, and heat t ransfer pr inciples to st udy combust ion processes (and consequences/ responses), inc lud ing jet /pool f ires, e x plosions, st r uct ura l response, and a var iet y of heat t ransfer processes for technica l process safet y st ud ies. Dr. Reed 's pr imar y area of e x per t ise is in model ing (ana ly t ica l and Computat iona l Flu id D y namics) and development of st ud ies such as Quant itat ive R isk A ssessment (QR A), Fire R isk A ssessment (FR A), Ex plosion R isk A ssessment (ER A), and Escape, Evacuat ion, and Rescue A ssessment (EER A). For more infor mat ion, contact: MMI Eng ineer ing , w w w.mmieng ineer Notes From the Field

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of CoatingsPro Magazine - NOV 2015